Searching for GOD...

[floo]

I wonder how many Christians think atheists go to hell?   I suppose a century ago, probably many did.   But today, it probably seems a bit weird to consign non-Christians to hell, when there are so many.

On the other hand, if non-Christians don't go to hell, then what is the point of Christianity?   What does it mean to be saved, if the unsaved get a slapped wrist? 

You get the sense of a dilution going on, since full-strength Christianity seems rather toxic or bonkers.

I agree.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

To answer your question, I don't believe there is a hell and if I remember correctly a wise woman once said, if there is a hell it is probably empty.

The point of Christianity, to walk with humility, to serve God by helping your fellowman, to be saved, to realise you are a miserable sinner, but you have the potential through Our Lord Jesus Christ to live a very fulfilling life, that is full strength Christianity.

Although I must admit, I have never met a full strength Christian.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Dear Wigs,

To answer your question, I don't believe there is a hell and if I remember correctly a wise woman once said, if there is a hell it is probably empty.

The point of Christianity, to walk with humility, to serve God by helping your fellowman, to be saved, to realise you are a miserable sinner, but you have the potential through Our Lord Jesus Christ to live a very fulfilling life, that is full strength Christianity.

Although I must admit, I have never met a full strength Christian.

Gonnagle.

Nice answer, but it is a dilution, isn't it?   I mean, a century ago, you would have been condemned from the pulpit for that.  If people aren't punished, then who are the sheep and the goats?   "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life".   Mt. 25: 46.

It sounds like a new religion really. 

[ippy]

Barnardos Goneagle, When my two adopted, both mixed raced boys were about four and six years old, we, the pair of us already approved adopters, applied to have another mixed race little girl from the be my parent book and the particular girl we were both interested in was available via Barnardos we got in touch with their Colchester branch, initially they were interested in us as prospective parents for this little girl.

After a few weeks we received a very furtive mumbling bumbling phone call telling us that because we were both white we wouldn't be suitable people to have a mixed race little girl, funny I somehow remembered, hang on, we already have two mixed race children, the woman on the other end of the phone sounded as though she was curled up with embarrassment, I can remember wondering why? 

Banardos is a long way off of our list of charities we subscribe to, I would rather burn any money before I gave anything, including money, to Barnardos 

ippy
   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Dilution? Well I suppose that is one way of looking at it, for me I see Christianity as a evolving religion, it adapts and adopts to survive, ask any pagan, we will gladly steal their festivals and turn them into our own

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

A very sad story but like any Christian organisation, they are not perfect, I have a friend who was a Barnado's boy, he can't praise them high enough.

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

Not lying, but deluded.

And this from someone who claims to be in private telepathic communication with some invisible pan-galactic hyperbeing that sorts out parking spaces for him with his magic powers    You are funny Alan.

[Sassy]

Sword,

Just to add to torri's post, you no more need "faith" to be an atheist than you need faith to find that 2 + 2 ≠ 5. Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments available for god(s) are flawed.

Truth is that in the light of our existence and the world around us, in this universe the evidence for God outweighs any of your so called flaws ideas.

It requires more faith to believe in science the atheist cling to that belief in God.
Because theories carry less water when it comes to proof about Jesus Christ and theories.
You can spout but you cannot prove you beliefs... But at least the Jews, and the covenants shows God active.

[floo]

The elusive 'TRUTH' might be the light of our existence if anyone knew exactly what it was, but no one does for sure. Some explanations, like the scientific ones, are more credible than others. Assertions that include the Biblical god aren't in the least bit credible, imo.

[Maeght]

Truth is that in the light of our existence and the world around us, in this universe the evidence for God outweighs any of your so called flaws ideas.

That of course seems true to you because you are a believer.

It requires more faith to believe in science the atheist cling to that belief in God.

I guess you meant 'than' rather than 'that'. In that case, people don't have faith in science, they see the results of scientific endevours and research and know it is a system which can be tested and falsified.

Because theories carry less water when it comes to proof about Jesus Christ and theories.

?

You can spout but you cannot prove you beliefs...

What beliefs?

[savillerow]

Msg 13809 Sassy You must be an alien, no one of planet earth can write and believe this mega tosh that you do. When might the penny ever drop that some things we know, some things we dont know. Hopefully humans can make a pretty good guess with the evidence available for all sorts of things in life. Religion(as an answer to everything) is not a good guess, by a goddam mile.

[floo]

Msg 13809 Sassy You must be an alien, no one of planet earth can write and believe this mega tosh that you do. When might the penny ever drop that some things we know, some things we dont know. Hopefully humans can make a pretty good guess with the evidence available for all sorts of things in life. Religion(as an answer to everything) is not a good guess, by a goddam mile.

I have just seen your post, I had already concluded Sass is an alien, and said as much on another thread!

[Khatru]

It can be difficult, but in addition to my own judgement I can use the bible and the guidance of the church.  Also I can ask myself: "Am I doing this for my own personal satisfaction or for the good of all?"Mistakes have been made, but I put my trust in God being able to guide us back on the right track.

I was just wondering how your god makes mistakes.

[Khatru]

Truth is that in the light of our existence and the world around us, in this universe the evidence for God outweighs any of your so called flaws ideas.

It requires more faith to believe in science the atheist cling to that belief in God.
Because theories carry less water when it comes to proof about Jesus Christ and theories.
You can spout but you cannot prove you beliefs... But at least the Jews, and the covenants shows God active.

So with all this evidence that you claim exists - why is it that the Bible says you must have faith?

If the evidence for your god outweighs the facts, observation, testing and peer criticism that scientific theories are based on, what's the point of faith?

[floo]

So with all this evidence that you claim exists - why is it that the Bible says you must have faith?

If the evidence for your god outweighs the facts, observation, testing and peer criticism that scientific theories are based on, what's the point of faith?

That is a good question.

[savillerow]

Msg 13815 Always a good point to make. It could drive you round the bend trying to marry up "I have faith" "Just believe" "Here is the proof" "OK OK its not proof , , , , take it on faith""Whats wrong with you" "Cant you see"  And round we go again.

[Sassy]

That of course seems true to you because you are a believer.

So you do not believe in evolution or science?
Did you really have a point?

I guess you meant 'than' rather than 'that'. In that case, people don't have faith in science, they see the results of scientific endevours and research and know it is a system which can be tested and falsified.

That is not correct. The fact is NO scientist tells you theory is fact. They know you have not been given any system or results of any tests which prove anything regarding evolution and science regarding life and how it came into existence.You make sure to avoid any evidence because it doesn't exist.

?

What beliefs?

So you don't believe in evolution or science?

[Maeght]

So you do not believe in evolution or science?

Depends what you mean by believe. I accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as a scientific theory that explains the wide range of species on this planet, and which is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. I also accept that the scientific method is an excellent tool for understanding the natural world. Do you consider that a belief?
 

Did you really have a point?

Of course, the point was obvious.

That is not correct. The fact is NO scientist tells you theory is fact.

I would hope not since the meaning of a theory in science and of a fact are different things (as you have been told before I know). Just because something is a theory that does not mean it is no well supported by evidence.

They know you have not been given any system or results of any tests which prove anything regarding evolution

There is a vast amount of evidence to support evolutionary theory.

....and science regarding life and how it came into existence.

Different from evolution of course and although there are a number of potential ideas we don't know how life began on this planet at the moment.

You make sure to avoid any evidence because it doesn't exist.

Lots of evidence for evolution. Abiogenesis is a different matter but no scientist claims to know how life formed.

So you don't believe in evolution or science?

See above.
[/quote]

[Alan Burns]

Alan thinks atheists will be sent to Hell and thinks it is a punishment and that atheists are deluded. So take it up with him.

To me, Hell is just being separated from God, and it is a consequence (not a punishment) of not
accepting Jesus as your redeeming saviour.  People who are genuinely deluded may well be saved,
but those who deliberately turn away from God will have to accept the consequences.

[Brownie]

Can any adult who comes to know God really turn away, Alan?

[Alan Burns]

Can any adult who comes to know God really turn away, Alan?

When asked for the definition of a sinner, a wise person once replied, " It is not one who commits sin, but one who loves sin".  I am certain that there are people who will reject God's goodness, even when faced with the truth.  In the RC church, the most serious sin is quoted as "Formal rejection of the Holy Spirit".

[Sebastian Toe]

I am certain that there are people who will reject God's goodness, even when faced with the truth.

Why do you think that they would do that though?

[Brownie]

I am wondering the same, Seb.

We are weak human beings, Alan, and may fall away at times but actually rejecting God, once you know him, is a different matter.

[torridon]

When asked for the definition of a sinner, a wise person once replied, " It is not one who commits sin, but one who loves sin".  I am certain that there are people who will reject God's goodness, even when faced with the truth.  In the RC church, the most serious sin is quoted as "Formal rejection of the Holy Spirit".

I suppose sociopaths and psychopaths might fit your definition of sinner.  But no-one chooses to be a sociopath in the first place do they ? In fact, we can go further than that, as Schopenhaur says, no-one chooses what to want.

I suppose that also labels all muslims and unitarian christians as 'sinners' as they reject the Trinity, on theological grounds; in this sense the RC church labels everyone who disagrees with its teaching as 'sinners'

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

From #13779

I would say that an atheist would find the arguments for god(s) personally unconvincing...

I'd question the "personally" here. The point of logic is that it's impersonal: 2 + 2 ? 5 regardless of who your are, your personal opinions, your "faith" etc. That's the difference from religious faith in particular, which gives you a "true for me only" god but that's all it gives you.

(emphasis mine)

But that doesn’t make it wrong (the underlined bit). The question is, how do you establish something as being true, or not?

If I said 2+2=10, this would be deemed illogical under base 10, and as you say, regardless of who you are, your personal opinions, your “faith”, etc. However, in base 3 (I wrongly said base 5 last time I used this), the statement is true. Therefore what appeared to be false is no longer false if certain parameters are changed.

Let me illustrate in another way: How can someone who can see prove to a blind person (who has always been blind) what a lemon is? Does the fact that there is no way to do so mean the blind person should conclude that there is no such thing as a lemon? Does the blind person not have to accept by faith what they are being told, whilst having to take as evidence that which supports it, e.g. texture, taste, etc. How do they know that they aren’t being the victim of a hoax? Those who can see know because for them, the existence of a lemon is fact. To the blind person however, they are not in a position to verify that fact so have to accept it by faith. According to you, they shouldn’t take this approach, yet because we know that lemons exist, it would be seen as nonsensical for a blind person to conclude that lemons don’t exist because they cannot prove that lemons do exist.